Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

simulation_case_create

Create a reservoir simulation case from a properties artifact, with fluid/SCAL inputs, schedule profile, and execution settings for waterflood, depletion, or no-flow scenarios.

Instructions

simulation_case_create

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "simulation_case_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesTool arguments object (all fields documented; Z is positive upward).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond that: it does not say a job/case record is created, whether the case can be re-run or deleted, that idempotency_key suppresses duplicates, or what happens when demo assumptions are not accepted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is a single identifier with no structure to speak of. It is not verbose, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing at all.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a state-creating tool with a deeply nested, high-stakes configuration object (fluid properties, execution placement, GPU policy) and no output schema. Given that complexity, a bare name is wholly inadequate: nothing explains the creation semantics, the demo_assumptions_accepted gate, or the relationship to sibling simulation tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single top-level parameter 'request' carries a fully documented nested schema (fluid/SCAL, profile, execution policy, artifact reference, schedule limits), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no semantics of its own, which is the baseline case for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites (a project_id and a properties artifact {id, revision} are required), and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether this precedes simulation_validate or simulation_submit in the pipeline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools